After the detaching of the educational system from the church, some secret notions from the Enigmatic Book needed to become hidden from the secular audience.That is why the brethrens nominated and helped generously their man, who was to concoct a theory of the human’s origin which is to satisfy the educational system – Charles Darwin.

Actually, Darwin reveals to the alumni of the educational system that Adam was a primate but not more. This feature was discretely circulated by the brethrens to discretely differ from Darwin in order to peck secularly the educated “gudgeons”. The gene in the primates had been amassed for long time, but till the moment of the androgenic making of Eva came, there were no quality changes in the kind of proto-humans. After the Falling into Sin the Godly hairy sons started freely to contract knowledge, got from Adam’s family from the fig trees wood – up to the Deluge, whether from populace or waters.

Of course the "science" came from churches in the past, as the clargymen were the only allowed to be educated. What's your point?

Isaac Newton was a clergyman?Ben franklin?Kelvin?Edison?Joule?Galileo?Boyle?Kepler?Faraday?Descartes?Off the top of my head, all are theist scientists which were not clergymen.

You can lie to yourself all you want about why they were all religious, and many were clergymen. But don't lie about the facts, which was that you "had to be" a clergymen." That is simply fabricated non-sense.

While I don't agree or follow the original post. I did not know that Darwin was a clergymen. I find it very interesting that atheists suddenly fought tooth and nail to remove religion from science in the late 19th century. Most scientists were philosophers and theologians before then. And everyday they homogenize even more as we get closer and closer to the real question we all want to answer "why are we here, and how did we get here?" This is both a scientific, religious, and philosophical question, not exclusively a "scientific" (in today's vernacular) one. As such, scientists should not be scorned, as they are today, for philosophizing and/or stating theological beliefs. There are many great scientists today who say they are atheist or agnostic, because they could lose their job and reputation if they don't. The modern collegian secular "scientific" community of today, is the 15th century church of yesterday.

Of course the "science" came from churches in the past, as the clargymen were the only allowed to be educated. What's your point?

[...snipped for brevity...]You can lie to yourself all you want about why they were all religious, and many were clergymen. But don't lie about the facts, which was that you "had to be" a clergymen." That is simply fabricated non-sense.

While I don't agree or follow the original post. I did not know that Darwin was a clergymen. I find it very interesting that atheists suddenly fought tooth and nail to remove religion from science in the late 19th century. Most scientists were philosophers and theologians before then. And everyday they homogenize even more as we get closer and closer to the real question we all want to answer "why are we here, and how did we get here?" This is both a scientific, religious, and philosophical question, not exclusively a "scientific" (in today's vernacular) one. As such, scientists should not be scorned, as they are today, for philosophizing and/or stating theological beliefs. There are many great scientists today who say they are atheist or agnostic, because they could lose their job and reputation if they don't. The modern collegian secular "scientific" community of today, is the 15th century church of yesterday.

Church used to be one of the very few human endeavour that allowed a scholarly life for a long time. It has progressively changed since the middle age, and offered the possibility of a career of study and science to those beyond the nobility and the clergy, hence the growing number of non religious scientist. This is what JackBean was pointing out. Nothing more as far as I can see.Unlike what you seem to think, reliogisity is not something that will prevent you to have a (successful) scientific career (over used high profile example: Francis Collins; but there are many more). And thinking a bout science and its implication, its ethics is quite fine, many people do and are not the least ridiculed for it. But if your religion makes you oblivious to facts, data and your biases then you will be ridiculed out of the profession for sure. And even that might not be even enough to get you out of the scientific "pantheon" (K. Mullis and F. Crick have had their lunatic moments, yet they merit still stand for themselves) nor even out of employment. For crying out loud there is such a thing as the Discovery institute! And please do not bring Ben Stein and the stupid expelled movie here.If there are so many atheists in science it is probably because many people see how conflicting many religious dogma can be with respect to reality. And when your profession and passion revolves around testing hypotheses and doubting what cannot be tested, it becomes a bit hard to do just that in another part of your life.

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)